1. Verb Root Shape in Yokuts: a Consequence of Morphological and Prosodic Structure PETER ARA GUEKGUEZIAN UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA NELS 45 – MIT, NOVEMBER 1 ST, 2014 EMAIL: GUEKGUEZ@USC.EDU

2. What are the consequences of syntactic structure in the word for phonological processes in the word? 2 Question

3. Syntactic material spelled out at the vP phase is sent to the phonology before other material → spelled-out material forms a phonological constituent (the stem) Novel Claim: Prior spellout of vP material can result in templatic effects in the stem due to minimality General Implication: possible cross-linguistic homology between boundaries in syntax (phases) and boundaries in phonology (stem and word edges) 3 Proposal

4. I focus on a process of verbal morphophonology in a single language, Chukchansi, a member of the Yokuts language family ◦Introduction: the Phenomenon and the Proposal ◦Morphosyntactic Structure: Phases ◦Phonological Effects: Minimality All data collected by the researcher and colleagues at California State University, Fresno 4 Outline of Presentation

5. Phenomenon: root shape change in Chukchansi Verb roots change shape when certain suffixes attach 5 Root Shape Change in Chukchansi Yokuts RootNo Shape ChangeShape Change /ʃawg/ ‘buy’[ʃaw.g-eʔ] ‘will buy’[ʃa.wa:.g-iʧ’] ‘buyer-NOM’ /k’a:mn/ ‘dry’[k’a:.min.-hil] ‘dried’[k’a.man.-ʔa-n’] ‘is drying’ /lihm/ ‘run’[lih.m-im.x-it] ‘just ran with X’[le.he:.m-e-t] ‘just made X run’

6. This phenomenon spurs two related questions: 1)What motivates these roots to change their shape? 2)What determines which suffixes correlate with root shape change? 6 Main Questions

7. I propose principled answers grounded in morphosyntactic and prosodic structure Root shape change is triggered by suffixes that are vP-level phase heads All root shape change is to the preferred LH Iambic foot ◦Minimality combined with iambic parsing give one-vowel inputs an LH iamb in the output 7 Proposal

8. In previous accounts of similar phenomena in the Yokuts language Yowlumne (e.g., Kenstowicz + Kisseberth 1979, Archangeli 1983, 1991, Zoll 1993, inter alia): ◦Verb roots choose from set of prosodic templates ◦Some suffixes impose a template chosen from this set upon roots No principled means to determine 1.the set of template-imposing suffixes, or 2.which template is chosen by which suffix 8 Previous Accounts

9. Syntax builds up structure and sends it to the interfaces (PF and LF) cyclically at phases (e.g., Uriagereka 1999, Chomsky 2001a,b) Words are built in the syntax (morphemes = bundles of syntactic features); Lexical Insertion spells out phonological exponents of these morphemes (Distributed Morphology, e.g., Halle and Marantz 1993, Marantz 2001) Prosodic structure demands that each phonological output is a Minimal Word, which must contain a stress Foot (Selkirk 1984, Nespor and Vogel 1986) 9 Theoretical Underpinnings

10. Chukchansi verb morphology: root, obligatory final suffix, and optional non-final suffixes in between Subset of non-final suffixes trigger root shape change ◦Trigger suffixes are always closer to the root than non-triggers Verb Structure: ROOT-(SFX Trigger )-(SFX Non-Trigger )-SFX Final ◦[lihm-it] [lehe:m-e-t] [lehe:m-e-wʃ-it] ◦run-RECrun-CAUS-RECrun-CAUS-RFLX-REC ◦‘just ran’‘just made X run’‘just made oneself run’ 10 Verbal Morphology

11. Final and non-final suffixes encode different syntactic categories ◦Final suffixes: tense, mood, non-finite subordination (gerunds) ◦Non-final suffixes: voice, aspect, derivation Final suffixes are syntactically higher (in Infl) than non-final suffixes (in vP domain between Infl and verb root) 11 Morphosyntax of Suffixes

12. Trigger and non-trigger suffixes encode similar categories (voice, aspect, nominalization) Proposal: these suffixes are in fact syntactically different 12 Triggers vs. Non-Triggers Trigger SuffixesNon-Trigger Suffixes VoiceCausativeUnaccusative, Passive, Reflexive, Benefactive, Comitative AspectInchoative, Durative, DistributiveImperfective, Processive (‘go X-ing’) NominalizationAgent, Adjunct (Instrument or Location) Object, Activity

13. Generalization: Voice and nominalization triggers have an active/causative element, which non-triggers lack Proposal: This element is the phase head v CAUSE (= transitive v* in Chomsky 2001a,b) ◦v CAUSE is only strong phase head in this position; other v heads (unaccusative, passive, reflexive, applicatives) are not phase heads (Chomsky 2001a,b; cf. Legate 2003) As phase head, v CAUSE sends complement (VP) to interfaces, PF and LF (Chomsky 2001a,b) 13 Triggers = Phase Heads

14. v CAUSE adds external argument and assigns Accusative Case to object v CAUSE is present in unergatives (one argument), transitives (two arguments) and causatives (three arguments) Unergative:bewn-eʔnaʔ“I will sew” sew-FUTI.NOM Transitive:bewn-eʔnaʔkami:sa-ʔan“I will sew a shirt” sew-FUTI.NOMshirt-ACC Causative:bewe:n-e-n’maʔnankami:sa-ʔan“You will make me sew-CAUS-FUTyou.NOMI.ACCshirt-ACCsew a shirt” Causatives have two v CAUSE s → two external arguments, two Accusative Cases 14 Phase Head v CAUSE

15. Difference between unergatives/transitives and causatives: morphological spellout of v CAUSE heads Unergatives/transitives: v CAUSE spelled out with root ◦Root head-moves from V to v CAUSE → not in complement of v CAUSE ◦Phonological “root” is exponent of both lexical root and v CAUSE Causatives: additional, higher v CAUSE spelled out by separate causative morpheme ◦Lexical root moved to lower v CAUSE lies within higher v CAUSE ’s complement → root + lower v CAUSE sent to interfaces 15 v CAUSE in Different Morphemes

16. 16 Transitive: Root not Sent to PF bewn-eʔnaʔ kami:sa-ʔan sew-FUTI.NOMshirt-ACC “I will sew a shirt”

17. 17 Causative: Root Sent to PF bewe:n-e-n’ maʔ sew-CAUS-FUTyou.NOM nankami:sa-ʔan I.ACCshirt-ACC “You will make me sew a shirt”

18. Other little v heads (unaccusative, passive, reflexive, applicatives) → not phase heads (no external argument added or Accusative Case assigned) → root not sent to PF Claim: Nominalizers in Chukchansi spell out both little v and a category-changing n head Agentive (actor) and adjunctive (instrument or location actor uses) nominalizers include v CAUSE → send root in complement to PF Other nominalizers (activity or object nominals) → other little v heads (not phase heads) → root not sent to PF 18 Voices and Nominalizers

19. Some aspect suffixes are triggers, some non-triggers ◦Triggers: inchoative, durative, distributive ◦Non-triggers: imperfective, processive ‘go X-ing’ Claim: trigger aspect suffixes → vP-internal Situation Aspect; non- trigger aspect suffixes → vP-external Viewpoint Aspect (see, e.g., Smith 1991, Travis 2000) Situation Aspect remains visible to interact with higher Viewpoint and Tense heads → phase head (sends root to PF) Viewpoint Aspect outside vP (in Infl domain) → not phase head 19 Aspect Heads

20. Syntactic material sent to PF → Lexical Insertion spells out morphophonological exponents (Distributed Morphology) ◦These exponents are then manipulated by the phonology Proposal: if some syntactic material (A) is sent to PF before other material (B), its morphophonological exponents (a) also enter the phonology before the latter’s (b) ◦Syntax: A > B → Phonology: a > b 20 Consequences of Spellout

21. Roots spelled out at vP phase go through phonology first Suffixes and roots spelled out at CP phase go through phonology afterwards Verbs cyclically spelled out, e.g., Chomsky and Halle (1968), Kiparsky (1982), with cycles = syntactic phases [[Cycle 1] vP Cycle 2] CP 21 Consequences of Spellout

22. Proposal: Root shape change is a phonological effect of cyclic spellout due to prosodic parsing and minimality Chukchansi has left-to-right iambic parsing ◦Shown by stress, vowel epenthesis, and root inventory Stress: words ideally have initial H or LH Feet ◦/ale:ʤa-n’/ ‘is crazy’ → [(ʔa.lé:).ʤan’] ◦/ade-ʃt-eʔ/ ‘will bring for X’ → [(ʔa.déʃ).teʔ] ◦/k’a:bo-taʔ/ ‘had caught’ → [(k’á:).bo.taʔ] ◦/ale:ʤa-la-wʃ-it/ ‘just made oneself crazy’ → [(ʔa.lé:).(ʤa.láw).ʃit] 22 Iambs in Chukchansi

23. Vowel epenthesis: repair of consonant clusters results in initial LH foot (optimal iamb, e.g., Prince 1991, Kager 1993) ◦/lihm-taʔ/ ‘had run’ → [(li.hím).taʔ], *[(líh).mi.taʔ] Root shape inventory: Vast majority of verb roots either shapeless, or easily parsed into H or LH (iambic) sequences ◦Very few roots in lexicon that would be parsed into LL sequences (bad iambs, e.g., Kager 1993, Hayes 1995) 23 Iambs in Chukchansi

24. Claim: all root shape change results in an LH iamb ◦/ʧiʃ-la-taʔ/ ‘had made X cut’ → [(ʧi.ʃa:).la.taʔ] ◦/ma:x-ʧ’-i/ ‘collector-ACC’ → [(ma.xa:).ʧ’i] ◦/gays-a-n’/ ‘gets better’ → [(ga.ye:).san’] ◦/be:wn-e-t/ ‘just made X sew’ →[(be.we:).net] Other root shape changes are “rare,” “not productive” (Newman 1944), severely morphologically restricted, or due to independent phonotactic reasons 24 Root Shape Change: LH Iambs

25. All lexical words minimally contain one stress foot (Selkirk 1984, Nespor and Vogel 1986) Claim: requirement enforced throughout derivation, resulting in a minimality effect for sufficiently small inputs Root (bundle of syntactic features) sent to PF at vP phase → Root (phonological exponent) enters phonology first (see e.g., Marvin (2002), Newell (2008)) Output root by itself (Cycle 1) must contain a stress foot 25 Phases and Minimality

26. Input has one vowel → second vowel epenthesized to form LH iamb Claim: LH iamb more well-formed than H iamb → material added to create LH (see Prince 1991, Kager 1993 for LH as optimal iamb) This is captured by the ranking FootForm >> Dep-V Parse-σ requires the output to contain a foot 26 Epenthesis and LH Iambs /L/Parse-σFootFormDep-V → (LˈH)* (ˈH), (LˈL)*! L

27. H inputs also receive an LH iamb: ◦/ma:x-/ → [(ma.xa:)-]; /be:wn-/ → [(be.we:).n-] Claim: this derivation is only epenthesis of a mora, not alteration of input mora associations Pressure to create an LH foot (FootForm) outweighs Dep-µ 27 H Roots and LH Iambs /H µµ /FootFormDep-µ → (L µ ˈH µµ )* (ˈH µµ )L µ *!* (ˈH µµ ), (L µ ˈL µ )*!

28. Larger inputs do not disturb input mora association to please FootForm ◦HL input (either root or word) → HL output (not *LH) High-ranked Max-µ and Faith-µLink prevent mora deletion or rearrangement to derive an LH output Claim: H and LH roots → input morae need not associate to vowels; but HL roots → input morae must associate ◦Grammar parses roots with 2 or 3 input morae into H and LH outputs, but not into HL outputs 28 Larger Roots: No LH Iamb

29. ◦HL /be:le-/ → [(be:).le-], *[(be.le:)-] ◦HH /hayk’it-/ → [(hay).k’it-], *[(ha.ya:).k’it-] 29 Larger Roots: No LH Iamb /H µµ H µµ /Max-µ, Faith-µLinkFootForm → (ˈH µµ )(H µµ )* (L µ ˈH µµ )*! /H µµ L µ /Max-µ, Faith-µLinkFootForm → (ˈH µµ )L µ * (L µ ˈH µµ )*!

30. Root not spelled out at vP phase → sent to PF with suffixes at CP phase ◦These include both non-final (vP) and final (Infl) suffixes Inputs with root and suffix(es) → always enough phonological material to form a Foot without epenthesis ◦Roots spelled out at CP phase → no shape change 30 Non-Shape Changing Suffixes

31. Root + suffix inputs cannot delete, epenthesize, or rearrange material to form LH output ◦/ʧiʃ-taʔ/ ‘had cut’ → [(ʧiʃ).taʔ], *[(ʧi.ʃa:).taʔ] ◦/ma:x-eʔ/ ‘will collect’ → [(ma:).xeʔ], *[(ma.xa:).ʔeʔ] Vowel epenthesis to repair consonant clusters can result in an LH iamb, but cannot alter existing moraic structure ◦/lihm-taʔ/ ‘had run’ → [(li.him).taʔ], *[(lih).mi.taʔ] ◦But, /be:wn-hil/ ‘sewed’ → [(be:).win.hil], *[(be.wen).hil] 31 Non-Shape Changing Suffixes

32. Preference for LH iambs → epenthesis in roots with one input vowel; constraints against changing input structure → no epenthesis in larger roots This ranking only produces root shape change with sufficiently small inputs = when required by minimality 32 LH Iambs: the Complete Story

33. Phase-based spellout account of root shape change → correct predictions about reduplication and the intransitive suffix Reduplicated roots → no shape change with LH-triggering suffixes Reduplicated roots have more than one vowel → no epenthesis ◦Base-Reduplicant faithfulness in fact prevents epenthesis ◦/RED-ʧiʃ-/ → [ʧiʃ.ʧiʃ-], *[ʧi.ʃa:.ʧiʃ-], *[ʧiʃ.ʧi.ʃa:-] Expected if root shape change driven by minimality, but not if resulting from suffix template imposition or subcategorization 33 Correct Predictions: Reduplication

34. Also correctly predicts → any non-phase-head suffix merged below vP-phase head gets spelled out with the root Unaccusative suffix /-n-/ becomes part of the shape-changed root: ◦/t’ul-n-ʔa-n’/ burn-UNACC-DUR-FUT → [(t’o.lon).ʔan’] ‘is burning’ ◦Asp* suffix /-ʔa-/ sends its complement (= root plus unaccusative v) to be spelled out first → LH iamb ◦Identical to “fake base” phenomenon in Newman (1944) Not expected if trigger suffixes impose templates on adjacent roots 34 Correct Predictions: Unaccusative v

35. Other predictions need to be checked: Shape change due to minimality, not template imposition → multiple vP-phase head suffixes should only trigger one LH iamb Specific structure of syntactic tree and relative height of suffixes should reveal semantic or scopal differences ◦E.g., I posit LH-triggering suffix /-ʔa-/ and non-triggering suffix /-xo-/ to be Situation Aspect and Viewpoint Aspect heads, respectively ◦Should be semantically distinguishable, but currently seem very similar ◦Distribution possibly due to presence of suffixes in lower head 35 Future Directions

36. Integrating account into bigger picture of Chukchansi phrasal syntax and derivational phonology ◦Phrasal syntax is relatively free, but phase effects may be deducible ◦Other aspects of phonology refer to similar morphological structure: ◦Long high vowel lowering (Guekguezian 2012) ◦Repairs of unsyllabifiable consonants (Hansson 2005) Thorough comparison with other Yokuts languages ◦Initial look at Newman (1944) → same generalizations hold, but more data needed 36 Future Directions

37. Principled analysis of root shape change in Chukchansi Yokuts ◦Not arbitrarily selected by the morphology ◦Result of syntactic structure of words (e.g., Halle and Marantz 1993) and general prosodic constraints (e.g., Prince 1991, Kager 1993) Phase-based spellout inside the word (e.g., Marantz 2001, Martin 2002, Newell 2008) → one vowel roots surface with LH iamb as minimality effect triggered by vP-phase head suffix ◦Prosodic Templates = Phase-Based Spellout + Minimality 37 Conclusions

38. Chukchansi Yokuts: example of word-internal syntactic boundary perfectly corresponding to phonological boundary This and other work (e.g., Travis 2010) suggest certain syntactic and phonological boundaries coincide in general Tentative suggestion: languages with morphologically complex verbs show homology between vP phase in (morpho-)syntax and templatic verb stem in (morpho-)phonology Intriguing correlations between vP phase and templatic verb stem in varied language families (Muskogean, Bantu, Semitic) 38 Conclusions

39. My colleagues at CSU Fresno, especially Chris Golston, Brian Agbayani, and Niken Adisasmito-Smith Karen Jesney and Roumi Pancheva for detailed feedback The audiences at USC Phon Lunch and Syntax+ The USC Graduate School for funding through a Research Enhancement Fellowship Most of all, my Chukchansi consultants, Holly and Jane Wyatt 39 Crucial Thanks